When I get a scam call I like to answer and then call the guy a liar or a scammer. I don't have the time to keep it going for 2 hours, but I'll give them some shit and waste a few minutes. One time I told the free gift card guy that he was a liar and asked how could he live with himself lying to people all the time and he asked me to prove he was a scammer.

Of course I told him I didn't need to prove anything, he already knows he's a scammer. Then he asked me again to prove it and I asked him why he doesn't just go and spend all the 50 dollar gift cards himself lol.

I hate to say adblock because so many people lose out on ad revenue that they deserve for creating content... but when you're faced with this shit on a daily basis, how can you blame anybody for essentially wrapping your computer and your family up in a condom before going in?

Was downloading something very important that was definitely not a Minecraft texture pack I’m a grown man, and the ad fly link tried to force feed my PC a virus, I didn’t even click anything. Funnier thing is the page screamed “MICROSOFT HAS CUT OFF ACCESS TO YOUR PC BECAUSE IT HAS A VIRUS” and the file it tried to download was named that lol. Chrome blocked the download though, didn’t even know that was a feature, glad it is.

I swear it’s not even a person doing these anymore, there’s just fuckin sentient internet AI who get kicks out of giving people viruses. It can’t be a person, naming a virus an entire sentence is not only lazy naming but also counterproductive to being lazy, and people are smarter than that, I think.

Sidenote: the texture pack was Sphax, and as up-to-date as they keep their stuff, I figured they’d use more legit advertisers. In the least, most of them have a direct mirror link, but they won’t let you. But yeah, not doing anything with Sphax again.

Is there an equivalent screening system for propaganda emails to old people? My dad still thinks everything he gets in a forwarded email has the same veracity as everything Walter Cronkite used to tell him on the 6:00 news. They are so full of tripe and outright fabrications (eg: "so and so retired general has written this open letter to the public because Americans need to know that liberals are taking over our blah blah blah") it is criminal. He forwards them all to me because he assumes I haven't received these important emails that "tell the real truth" and that is why I am so misguided.

There is no way I can dissuade him from believing everything. When I send factual articles from reputable news sources, he lectures me on "fake news," which he read all about in an email. It is scream-inducing.

Sadly, the younger and older crowd (so the ones who are more likely to fall for these scams) often use mobile devices. While yes, you can block ads on mobile devices, it's more difficult/less intuitive than just installing a browser extension on a PC.

I'll never browse the internet without an ad-blocker. Even websites I use and want to support, you whitelist them and it's full of garbage distracting ads, and the security flaws are not worth the risk.

Tried YouTube Vanced, I couldn't sign in to my Google play account even if I installed the packages it was asking for. If you have an in depth guide on how to set it up, that would be nice, cause the one on their website is almost as bad as the ads they block.

NewPipe is a good replacement for Youtube's official app if you want to avoid ads. I was sick and tired of getting shitty mobile ads popping up every 10 minutes on some videos so started using that instead. Like, not even ads for normal high profile mobile games like Youtube used to feed me, shitty bottom-of-the-barrel mobile games that have ads that all feel exactly the same. I feel bad for not supporting content creators I like but it just got to be too much.

I get straight up racist ones. Like a black woman in all cheetah print with huge lips and hoop earrings grinding on a topless jacked black man with a low brow and grillz. Then you get to "choose your own story!" with options like "confront your baby daddy".
I was trying to get a runescape quest guide but I guess this is appropriate too. /s

They regularly ban things that bring them revenue. They make more money long term by serving quality ads. The problem is that detecting and removing bad ads is a really hard problem at Google scale, particularly when there is a ton of money being funneled into companies to try to defeat that detection.

Fucking Candy Crush Soda has these ads you can watch for extra bonus. They have this one fat-melting drink or something that is so ridiculous they would be brought up on charges if it were on TV. 300+ lb fat woman -> clip of Shark Tank judges -> clip of foam disappearing -> similar fat woman on treadmill which is slashed out "No Exercise!" -> 130 pound woman holding HUGE pants. Actual pitch phrase: "How it work so good?"

I don’t know, that’s true and I generally agree with you, but I can sympathize with parents who log their card info in the phone for making online purchases, hand it to kids to distract them while they’re being little shits, and look down a few minutes later to realize that the kid received a pop-up interstitial in the game that made a $100 purchase one click away — especially if they’re not familiar with these “free” games and how they operate.

So yeah, it’s easy to say in hindsight that they should have known better and cast stones about kids and screen time distraction, but I think there’s a difference between “blaming a third party for not monitoring” their children for them and being upset that a game designed for children deliberately works a large purchase into the gameplay.

I feel like that’s kind of on the OSs though, that they should make people deliberately enable in-app purchases just like they do notifications... and I’m not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but knowing that Apple takes a cut of every purchase made on/through an app makes it make sense. That’s why Amazon makes me go to their site to purchase Kindle books while I can’t buy them through the Kindle app itself and Spotify charged $12.99 in the app and $9.99 through their site. Also why Epic sells Fortnite for Android on its site and not the Google Play.

There should be a law that any ad that is found to be fake, a scam, or promoting unproven medical claims, etc costs the host of the advertisement (ie google) a minimum of 10X the amount made from said ads + a fine, and and add in a provision that makes it illegal to try and offset this cost, and if caught doing so must pay 100X what advertiser made or more.

If there was one, I would gaurantee that companies like google would actually start vetting what they advertise. Rather then wait till they get caught.

Except these laws target the person posting the Ad, and selling the fraudulent product. They do not target the platform that allows the advertisement. If someone purchases fake medicine via an Ad from Company X that they saw on google ads, google doesn't get fraud charges, Company X does.

This law, would penalize the advertising platforms, like google, for not vetting the ads and allowing fraudulent ads on their platform. The best way to reduce the number of fraudulent ads, isn't to go after those posting the ads, but the platforms they are posted on.

I work in the field of stem cell biology and it is great that google is keeping bullshit companies from profiting off of the hope of people looking for miracle cures. This is just as important as antiscience ads or psuedoscience tonics.

Exactly. People working in stem cell research aren't putting ads on google about it. They're researching and trying to get grants. On the other hand, there are plenty of soulless assholes putting up ads about miracle stem cell cures trying to scam vulnerable people.

be careful of misunderstandings, there are researchers who start up companies with stem cells in mind and absolutely put ads out with the intent to offer a miracle to patients who have no other options and they hire folks who did their time in accredited universities but have no oversight in their activities. Don't spread their bullshit , don't https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/fda-warns-about-stem-cell-therapies

Well okay don’t go too far here, many of those same scientists with companies have done clinical trials on their “products” or are currently in the process of doing clinical trials on their “products” and DO have some media presence (which some might construe as advertising). Typically these aren’t products sold to the general public but are available through a hospital or medical practice.

I guess what I’m saying is don’t paint scientists who start companies for the end product of their research with too broad a brush.

Regarding those therapies, I think this part of the article applies to them:

It will also extend to treatments that are rooted in scientific findings and preliminary clinical experience “but currently have insufficient formal clinical testing to justify widespread clinical use.”

So it's not Google saying those fields of biomedical research are bunk (they are rooted in scientific findings), it's just that for the most part they haven't undergone enough clinical testing yet. The science behind those topics is rock solid, it's just the translation to clinical application that hasn't been thoroughly detailed yet.

These are exactly the areas where the public is most at risk of predatory advertising, I think. For example, people have at least heard of stem cells, which increases the likelihood they’ll respond to the ad despite very few proven clinical applications. It takes a more analysis to identify “Regenerative Stem Cell Therapy Now Available for Knee Pain!” as bunk than it does to see that “Widget X now controls knee pain!” is bunk.

I don't mind that it's being sold. Even if it only works on a placebo level that is a positive. I would just like to see the science of how/why it acts for the human body. Also, good on you for not being that snake-oil guy.

I've had CBD recommended by a normal doctor. Recommended for moderate joint pain, to be used only as much as it was effective. He at no point said it would cure anything, just that many of his patients report some relief from CBD topical applications. Since the alternatives are rough on the stomach or are opiates, he felt it was worth exploring.

Unfortunately, I can't give any personal anecdotes, because although it's legal to buy and legal to use, and I can even go to work moderately stoned on prescription opiates (office job with plenty of checks to prevent expensive fat-finger mistakes), I'd be fired if I used a CBD cream.

I don't think people should be getting ads about those things if they are not yet proven to work either. They may be based in science, have a lot of legitimacy, promise, etc. But ads are to get people to buy something. Should I want to buy an unproven stem cell therapy?

That's already how it works. Clinical trials are divided into four distinct phases to determine safety and efficacy. Per the FDA, drugs can only be marketed to American consumers after successfully passing through Phase III.

I think this article suggests that Google can not market trial participation in Phase I.

My mother was always against social media but when she got cancer and we knew she didn't have long left she signed up for Facebook to be in easier contact with distant relatives while she still had time. It was nice for her to get in contact with distant loved ones but holy fuck it was a nightmare from there ads and stuff. She kept getting them about how cancer is actually a fungus and just buy this book about how to inject baking soda and eat only honey will cure you and other outlandish shit like that. Almost immediately she also started receiving phone calls that her prescription for her painkillers had been cancelled and they needed her credit card information to verify it was her on the phone. It was insane and caused actual harm to us.

I don't know if it's coincidental and they got the number some other way, or if one of the scam advertisers got through the "bug" at the time that was allowing them to see your phone number if you had it on your account. I just know they started right after she signed up.

I wish all the best for you as well. It's hard enough to deal with the cruelty of this illness. You shouldn't have to fight off the wolves on the phone at the same time.

We've got to the point where we text her so she'll know to expect a call. She doesn't text back but she'll know it's a legitimate call anyway. We wanted to block all calls except contacts but she wouldn't go for that in case of an emergency.

If she signed up with a smartphone, Facebook would have access to that information. They sell any and all pieces of data they collect about their users (and even people who aren’t their users in some cases) to advertisers.

So, say if they’ve got a “cancer patient” data point for a user, and you’ve got bad actors specifically looking to buy data about cancer patients, it really wouldn’t take long depending on how ravenously these bad actors are seeking out that data.

I could only imagine there are people out there buying marketing data about the most vulnerable groups they can think of. It’s disgusting, sure, but that’s the world we live in.

Generally, that's not true. Facebook doesn't directly sell that data to advertisers - that would destroy their long-run market potential. They actually hoard that data to themselves, and sell access to those users to advertisers.

There's other ways for advertisers to get contact lists, maybe even through Facebook exploits, but it's not Facebook's business model.

It seems we still don’t know for sure. A few governments that I’m aware of are still investigating on the matter.
Facebook themselves said no information was provided to third parties “without people’s permission”, but the way they define permission can be as loose as “was friends with a person who used a Facebook app”.
Either way, it’s still easy enough for people to harvest Facebook data via other means, such as with the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal. I think the main point that harvesting user data on Facebook opens up dangerous possibilities still stands though.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just felt it was important to clarify that ‘they sell any and all pieces of data they collect to advertisers’ isn’t exactly correct.

Of course there are loads of vectors by which they gather, buy, share, and sell information and access to clients. But I can’t see them selling all their user data wholesale. That would be them selling themselves out of business.

My spouse has had a chronic illness for nearly 15 years, the shit people try to sell is disgusting. At least people are questioning Facebook posts today, I had to walk away from a lot of people because it was so intense.

Social media companies need to be held accountable. It's been the wild west for too long but it obviously needs to change. Reading things like this really pisses me off. Facebook is directly profiting off exploiting your mother's illness.

I have psoriasis and I spend some one researching the medication I'll be on and how to further help manage my disease. the amount sponsored ads I get for "miracle cures" is disturbing and highly predatory for people less versed in the issue itself. It's a genetic and currently INCURABLE issue.

This is unfortunately the perfect target for predatory cures/drugs. Most people searching for this illness have probably tried many other things before, were told it couldn't be cured, and many are more open to scams that promise to cure them.

That's what I am starting in a couple weeks. Just waiting for pre-authorization to complete. Thanks for the positive vibes. At 32 it's a real bummer. I look pretty good right now but I feel like a ticking time bomb.

One you find something that works, you don't rock that boat. I have several lifelong, chronic conditions as well and finally seem to be in a good place with my meds right now and keep going and praying my insurance doesn't change their mind.

Homeopathy is even reimbursed by medical insurances in some countries, especially in Europe. There's a German producer (Hevert) who's suing people for saying that it doesn't work outside of the placebo effect. Which it doesn't, by the way. How would it? It's just sugar pills.

A friend of mine used to work in a pharmacy and quit after being fed up at having to sell homeopathic stuff to cancer patients for horrendous prices at the recommendation of their doctors. IMO doctors who prescribe that stuff should be charged with negligence.

I bought some "essential" oils just for the scents. It's like incense that lasts longer, or a stronger scented candle. And it smells way better than those heinous Glade Plug-ins that my family always had.

But now my ad suggestions are all about the fake medicinal benefits of oils and I'm like... I just want my living room to smell like tea tree and vanilla.

There are actual physicians (in the USA) who treat Musculoskeletal conditions with manipulations (not chiropractic manipulation) and in addition are residency trained and board certified. They are called NMM/OMM specialists. This is who people should see if their bodies hurt.

Yeah, it's not free speech, it's a health issue. Anti-vax ads are akin to ads saying unprotected sex can't spread AIDS. Like, sure, you could make a free speech absolutist argument why you should be able to purchase an ad that says that. But even if the government doesn't prevent it, the fucking company that regulates those ads internally should.

Advertising unproven medical treatments is already illegal. I would guess that most of these companies are specifically not making any medical claims, because if they were they would have more than just Google to worry about.

I can't imagine that even if we all paid $10 a month it would amount to more than they making a month off ad revenue on us and realistically I'm not going to pay more than $10 a month to use Google ad free.

True. I think that there is some gray area. e.g. Will Google allow an ad for an FDA approved drug that is being advertised in an off-label use? That being said as their post mentions I think that the benefits generally outweigh the harms of the policy as many people are advertising hype to exploit people's hope.

Yeah, you can ban all the unethical crap that doesn't pay you very much , but we know you'll still take authoritarian Chinese, Turkish, and Saudi Money. I suppose once they pass a certain amount of dead people it's just another statistic. Right google and amazon?

Can they now stop pseudo science coming up in the first page of search queries, when I search for properties of a mineral I want to know how to identify it in the field not if it will charge my fucking chakra

Health Supplements and admittedly 'holistic' treatments are still okay because it admits its not actual medicine. Basically Google is telling companies that advertise through Google to preemptively clean up their diction in case of being charged/accused of abetting false advertisers of medical drugs. As long as they make it seem like they fixed the mess before possible legislation hits, they come out looking like it was always a priority. Not to mention, no lawsuits, no inconvenient court precedents.

I don’t understand why we look to companies to self-regulate these things based on a moral compass that doesn’t exist. Just so much we let them freely get away with yet here we applaud them for doing the bare fucking minimum.